Indigenous poverty since the Henderson Report

This paper examines the contribution of Ronald Henderson to empirical and policy research into Indigenous poverty. The Poverty Inquiry (also known as the Henderson Report) drew attention to the particular situation of the Indigenous poor and generated awareness that the solutions to Indigenous and non-Indigenous poverty are not necessarily identical. Despite the difficulty in ensuring the comparability of the measures of Indigenous poverty, the overall conclusion of the analysis is that Indigenous poverty, as measured by income, has improved marginally relative to the rest of the population since the mid-1970s. However, these improvements are more likely to be the result of increases in the proportion of low-income non-Indigenous households than due to reductions in the proportion of low-income Indigenous households. The conceptual problems of using income-based measures for Indigenous Australians are somewhat intractable in view of the limitations of current data sources. For example, the existing measures of poverty may fail to capture: important non-income sources of welfare such as hunting and gathering; differences in the income-sharing arrangements and household/ family size among Indigenous and non-Indigenous households; variations in the cost of living between remote and urban Australia; and the depth of Indigenous poverty. Improved data quality on the monetary and non-monetary aspects of Indigenous welfare are required to progress our understanding of the nature and extent of Indigenous poverty and to inform possible policy prescriptions to address this ongoing and seemingly entrenched problem

The comparative economic status of CDEP and non-CDEP community residents in the Northern Territory in 1991

The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme is a program where participants forego social security entitlements and work for rough equivalents of these entitlements. The scheme has expanded rapidly over the past decade and now operates in 250 Indigenous communities. While the scheme has multiple objectives, it is arguably primarily a labour market program. While there is a growing body of research about the scheme, key research and policy questions about the labour market effects of the scheme on participating communities, in contrast to other communities, have never been asked. This paper represents the first attempt to compare labour market outcomes at a sample of CDEP and non-CDEP communities in the Northern Territory. This exercise is undertaken with community profile data (on Indigenous people only) from the 1991 Census: ten CDEP and nine nearby non-CDEP communities are compared. Five variables – labour force status, industry structure, occupational status, sector of employment and income status – are analysed. The paper's results are potentially of considerable policy significance. While official employment levels at CDEP communities are predictably higher than at non-CDEP communities, these levels exceed the direct effect of scheme participation. However, income status at CDEP communities is a little lower than at non-CDEP communities, a puzzling outcome given the options to earn additional income when participating in the scheme. Another puzzling outcome, counter to the views of some researchers, is that there is little statistical evidence of the scheme being used as a substitution funding regime. It is recommended that results are treated with caution given the regional focus of this exploratory analysis

The geographic distribution of unemployment-related benefits and CDEP scheme employment

The analysis of the geography of unemployment-related benefits and Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) scheme employment yields several insights into Indigenous labour market activity. By simultaneously examining both, it is possible to estimate the proportion of the Indigenous labour force which depends on some form of government assistance. The CDEP scheme also alters geographic patterns of unemployment and long-term unemployment and partially redresses the spatial mismatch of employment demand and Indigenous labour supply. Future policy should focus on increasing the mobility of Indigenous workers across areas, industry and occupation

Rejoinder to 'Key Social and Economic Indicators for Indigenous Australia: A Comparative Analysis'

Response to a study prepared for the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs by Australasia Economics. In September 2003, CAEPR Discussion Paper 254 was the first of what subsequently proved to be a number of publications noting how Indigenous affairs performance in the intercensal period 1996-2001, as measured by standard social indicators, was little different to the previous intercensal period 1991-1996. These findings have been criticised in an Appendix to an April 2004 report entitled Key Social and Economic Indicators for Indigenous Australia: A Comparative Analysis, by Australasia Economics, which is available on the Australian Government's Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination website. This Rejoinder provides background to the controversy and continues the public debate

Monitoring 'practical' reconciliation: Evidence from the reconciliation decade, 1991-2001

In this background paper we aim to answer an apparently straightforward question that is rarely asked: how do the outcomes in the period 1991–96, represented by the Federal government and many conservative commentators as a period when symbolic reconciliation was too dominant, compare with those in the period 1996–2001 when a change in government saw a greater policy focus on practical reconciliation

The Challenge of 'Closing the Gaps' in Indigenous Socioeconomic Outcomes

This briefing paper was prepared for the Australia 2020 Summit in April 2008. It examines trends and predictions for key Indigenous socioeconomic indicators in the context of the Rudd Government's policy commitment to eliminate the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and other Australians by 2030

How realistic are the prospects for 'closing the gaps' in socioeconomic outcomes for Indigenous Australians?

Practical reconciliation, and more recently, closing the gaps have been put forward as frameworks on which to base and then evaluate policies to address Indigenous disadvantage. This paper uses census-based analysis at the national level to examine trends in Indigenous wellbeing since 1971. There has been steady improvement in most socioeconomic outcomes as measured by standard social indicators in the last 35 years. This finding is at dramatic odds with the currently dominant discourse of failure in Indigenous affairs. However, evidence of convergence between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes is not consistent. There have now been eight censuses since 1971, and this paper seeks to use information of best-case scenario trends to make some crude estimates of when the gaps might be closed in order to assess the realism of this emerging overarching goal of policy

Indigenous Potential meets Economic Opportunity Discussion Paper

A submission by CAEPR researchers to DEWR's ' Indigenous Potential meets Economic Opportunity ' CDEP Discussion Paper, November 2006

The Indigenous visual arts industry

This research project has been an active collaboration between the ACCC, CAEPR and ATSIC